How a neutral be comes affected with knowledge of a blockade. English and American theory. 1 force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of § 57. As a blockade is not a necessary consequence of a state of war, and need not even be permanent when instituted, it is not assumed that the neutral possesses any knowledge of its existence, until the fact of its establishment has been in some manner notified or brought home to him. But opinions differ widely as to whether it is sufficient in order to justify the belligerent in seizing the property of the neutral, that the knowledge of the latter shall be proved, or whether a formal notification must be served upon him. According to the view which finds its expression For the Declaration of Paris see Appendix III. With reference to its meaning, Lord Russell, in 1863, wrote as follows: The Declaration of Paris was in truth directed against what were once termed " paper blockades;" that is, blockades not sustained by any actual force, or sustained by a notoriously inadequate naval force, such as an occasional appearance of a man-of-war in the offing, or the like. . . . The interpretation, therefore, placed by Her Majesty's government on the Declaration was, that a blockade, in order to be respected by neutrals, must be practically effective. . . . It is proper to add, that the same view of the meaning and effect of the articles of the Declaration of Paris, on the subject of blockades, which is above explained, was taken by the representative of the United States at the Court of St. James' (Mr. Dallas) during the communications which passed between the two governments some years before the present war, with a view to the accession of the United States to that Declaration.' Lord Russell to Mr. Mason, Feb. 10, 1863, ap. Bernard, 293. in English and North American practice, the source of liability to seizure is knowledge of the fact that a blockade has been established, together with the presumption that an existing blockade will under ordinary circumstances continue. A neutral, therefore, who sails for a port with full knowledge that it is blockaded at the moment when his voyage is commenced, ought to expect that it will be in the same state when he arrives; and anything which can be proved to affect him with knowledge at the former time will render him liable to the penalties imposed for violation of blockade. On the other hand, according to the view which French theory. is identified with French practice, the neutral is not expected to shape his course on any presumption with respect to the continuance or cessation of a blockade; and he is not injuriously affected by knowledge acquired at any time before he can experimentally test its existence as good on the spot which is subjected to it. Hence, although it has lately become customary for French the French Government at the commencement of a practice. blockade to notify the fact of its existence to foreign governments as a matter of courtesy, their subjects are not considered to be affected by notice through them. Each neutral trader approaching the forbidden coast is individually warned, the fact of warning is endorsed on the ship's papers, and it is only for subsequent attempts to enter, that he is liable to seizure. The practice was consistently followed by France in blockading the Mexican ports in 1838, and those of the Argentine Republic in the same year; it has been equally respected during her recent European wars; and stipulations in accordance with it are found in many modern treaties concluded by her, as well as in a certain number of conventions between other states. It is also adopted English and Ame tice. by several modern continental writers; who argue that to sail for a blockaded place in the hope of finding the entry freed by the chances of war, by the effects of weather, or by some other cause, is in itself an innocent act, and therefore not to be punished because the hope fails to be justified by the circumstances existing at the moment of arrival.1 The theory accepted in England and the United rican prac. States is the natural parent of a more elastic usage. Notification is a convenient mode of fixing a neutral with knowledge of the existence of a blockade, but it is not the necessary condition of his liability to seizure. In strictness, if a neutral vessel sail with the destination of a blockaded port from a place at which the fact of blockade is so notorious that ignorance of its existence is impossible, confiscation may take place upon seizure without previous warning. But in practice notification of some sort is 2 1 Ortolan, ii. 335-41; Calvo, § 1150, considers that the French practice ought to be the accepted rule of law; Pistoye and Duverdy, i. 370, and Hautefeuille, tit. ix. chap. ii. sect. ii. hold that the special notification is necessary, and that a diplomatic notification ought also to given. The treaties in which France has inserted stipulations in conformity with her practice are those with Brazil, 1828 (De Martens, Nouv. Rec. viii. 60); with Venezuela, 1843 (Murhard, Nouv. Rec. Gén. v. 172); with Ecuador, 1843 (ib. 411); with New Grenada, 1844 (ib. vii. 621); with Guatemala, 1848 (ib. xii. 11); with Chile, 1846 (Samwer, Rec. Gén. iii. pt. i. 10); with Honduras, 1856 (ib. pt. ii. 154); with Nicaragua, 1819 (ib. 191). The treaties in which coun tries other than France have bound themselves by like pro visions are those between the United States and Sweden in 1816 (De Martens, Nouv. Rec. iv. 258); the Hanseatic Towns and Mexico, 1828 (ib. Nouv. Supp. i. 687); the United States and Sardinia, 1838 (ib. xvi. 266); Austria and Mexico, 1842 (Murhard, iii. 448). The practice seems to have arisen out of the doctrine of the Second Armed Neutrality, in the treaties concluded between the members of which the principle was first laid down. De Martens, Rec. Supp. ii. 393. 2 The Columbia, i Rob. 156; The Adelaide Rose, ii Rob. 111, note; The Union, Spinks, 164. 'If a blockade de facto be good in law without notification, and a wilful violation of a legal blockade be punishable with always given. If the blockade is instituted under the direct authority of the Government, the fact of its commencement is notified to foreign states. The information thus communicated affects their subjects, who must be supposed to be put in possession of the knowledge which is afforded with the express object of its being communicated to them. If therefore a vessel sails to a blockaded port at a time clearly later than that at which the general notification is matter of public knowledge, no special notification is required before seizure.1 But the case is different when vessels sail before such time, or approach a port closed by a merely de facto blockade, which has been instituted on the authority of the officer commanding the belligerent force in the neighbouring seas, or which for some reason has not yet been the subject of a diplomatic notification. Knowledge of the fact cannot then be presumed, and vessels are consequently turned back with a like notice endorsed on their papers to that which is required under the French usage. And a mitigation of the strict rule is introduced when a vessel sails with full knowledge of the existence of a blockade from a port at a great 2 confiscation, propositions which engaging in the trade between the ports so blockaded, a warning to each vessel approaching is indispensably requisite.' Spinks, 135. 1 The Columbia, loc. cit.; The Neptunus, ii Rob. 114; The Vrow Johanna, ii Rob. 109; J. Story in The Nereide, ix Cranch (American), 440. 2 Vrow Judith, i. Rob. 151; The Neptunus, loc. cit. A vessel may sail with the intention of inquiring whether a blockade de facto is continued or not. Naylor v Taylor, iv Manning and Ryland, 531. distance from the closed harbours. The presumption in favour of continuance of the blockade is of necessity weakened with a lapse of time sufficient for the completion of a long voyage; and it was held during the wars at the beginning of the century that a vessel coming from America into European waters was not rendered liable to capture by mere destination to a blockaded port. Inquiry as to the continued existence or suspension of the blockade was under these conditions justifiable; but it was held that such inquiry ought to be made, not at the blockaded port, but at intermediate places, where fraud was less likely to be masked under inquiry, than at the mouth of the blockaded harbour.1 1 The Betsey, i Rob. 334. The United States have stipulated for this mitigated practice in treaties concluded in 1828 with Brazil (De Martens, Nouv. Rec. ix. 62); in 1836 with Venezuela (ib. Nouv. Série, iv. 560); in the same year with Bolivia (ib. vi. 20); and in 1839 with Ecuador (Murhard, iv. 316). M. Calvo has misapprehended the effect of these treaties in adducing them as examples of the adoption of the French practice with respect to notification. He has shown an equal misapprehension of the English practice in treating as a middle term between it and that of France the Danish Regulations of 1864, providing that special notification is to be given to a vessel which, from the shortness of time which has elapsed since the issue of a general notification, has not had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the existence of a blockade. Droit International, § 1156-7. M. Ortolan appears also to have fallen into error with respect to the practice.of the United States, in saying, after stating the French practice, that 'c'est ainsi également, qu'agissent les Etats Unis d'Amérique.' Mr. Lincoln's Proclamation of April 19, 1861, no doubt stated that vessels would be individually warned; but Commodore Prendergast, in notifying the actual commencement of the blockade of the Virginian coast in July of the same year, said only that those coming from abroad, and ignorant of the blockade, will be warned off;' and the principle that sailing from a neutral port with intent to enter a blockaded port, and with knowledge of the existence of the blockade, subjects the vessel to capture, without special notice, was re-asserted with much emphasis by C. J. Chase in the case of The Circassian, ii Wallace, 151. It has always been a principle in American practice, and was affirmed by J. Story in the case of The Nereide, ix Cranch, 440. In |